Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[Just another Joe]

Does this sound familiar, Danny?

After a few years of comparative non-intervention, and some liberalization, the government moved towards a highly interventionist policy, and governmental pronouncements increasingly harped on the "state of health." All traces of conservatism were lost, save only for the insistence that actual nationalization of businesses be avoided.

[CSM]

Then I have no problem that they decided, on their own, to take this action. It is their property and they can decide to take this action. I doubt they were following the fed gov't as an example. I would bet that the fed gov't and health ins. companies started publicizing the health stats, then raised prices on health ins. and the businesses found that a cost advantage existed if they changed their smoking policies.

Not many businesses follow the example of the inefficient government, they would rather be as efficient as possible.

[Gabz]

(loss of regular customers that go every day to the watering hole and spend significant money). These changes in the customer profile are directly caused by government intervention and will drive the average customer spend down while fixed costs remain constant. Therefore driving everyone's prices up.

Exactly.

From experience I know exactly what happened in Delaware bars and restaurants - the regulars disappeared, and were not replaced by equal numbers of non-smokers spending equal numbers of dollars.

Just using my husband and I as an example...The $100 or so a week he and I spent in a couple different places, for lunch and/or happy hour stopped going to the local places. The beer money went to the corner liquor store and lunch money went to the supermarket. And our Friday happy hour dollars went to another state. And we weren't the only ones doing that. The bar in Maryland we went to on Fridays was packed with folks from Delaware who stopped going out there.

The losses have been astronomical.

And the bar and waitstaff that hadn't asked for government intervention to protect their health no longer have jobs, because the business just isn't there.

And the places that had been non-smoking by choice - they're market was stripped away from them.

[CSM]

"The losses have been astronomical.

And the bar and waitstaff that hadn't asked for government intervention to protect their health no longer have jobs, because the business just isn't there.

And the places that had been non-smoking by choice - they're market was stripped away from them."

Yep, simple economics at work. That is why I am surprised any FR member wouldn't see it. The closer we move to full socialism (full gov't. ownership of all property) from capitalism the more failure we shall endure. Incremental socialism is more evil than just being violently defeated in a war by a socialist state. The frog in the pot theory, and people still don't get it!

[DannyTN]

"Does this sound familiar, Danny? "

Only the following line: "and governmental pronouncements increasingly harped on the "state of health." And I'm assuming "state of Health" is healthcare related, but that it is by no means clear from your excerpt.

But I'm sure whereever you got that from must be the history of some socialist country. Let me guess...France? No, not France...more baths would have been the first thing regulated if health was being stressed...that pretty much leaves Russia...ok, that's my final answer.

[bjcintennessee]

ping for later.

[Just another Joe]

Italy before WWII.

Sounds sort of like what is beginning to happen in the US, doesn't it.

It's called Facism.

[DannyTN]

Sounds sort of like what is beginning to happen in the US, doesn't it.

I don't know, at first glance the mention of increasing regulation would probably cause everybody in every society in every timeframe to think it applied to them. In that way, it's kind of ubiquitous like a horoscope.

At second glance other than that one phrase, I don't see it.

After a few years of comparative non-intervention, NOPE
and some liberalization, NOPE
the government moved towards a highly interventionist policy, NOPE (smoking and DNC list aren't enought to rate this)
and governmental pronouncements increasingly harped on the "state of health." OK (Smoking would, but "health" has been an issue as long as I can remember.)
All traces of conservatism were lost, NOPE (not with Repubs in congress - at least I haven't given up hope on them yet - and they are still better than the rats)
save only for the insistence that actual nationalization of businesses be avoided. NOPE not even close.

[Just another Joe]

I didn't say exactly. It's only beginning and if you don't know what that camels nose looks like you'll never see it coming.

[qam1]

Can you neglect this finding?

Yeah, Philip Morris is a sell out. They have to say that because of the MSA and their fear of lawsuits.

But let's cut to the chase already.

Name One

That's all I am asking is just Name One person who has died from second hand smoke. Just give me a name.

The Anti-smoking Nazis claim 60,000 people a year die from SHS so it should be no problem for you to Name One.

Let me put that 60,000 number in perspective, We know ~40,000 people a year die in auto accidents and I am willing to bet you could name me one person you know of whose died in an auto accidents and the odds are you can name more than one so statistacally for every two people you know that died in a car accident you should be able to give me 3 who died from SHS.

But I am not asking for 3 all I am asking is for you to Name One

One more time to be sure Name One

[lockjaw02]

Someone half jokingly e-mailed me an off-the-cuff remark about this "Helena Miracle". They wrote that this whole "fluctuation" may have been simply an artificial condition that the smoking ban may have created by detering older retired out of towners from venturing into the Helena area casinos and thus causing a reduction in the transient population at higher risk for having AMI's (those damn excitable smoking gamblers). It really got me thinking about the genius in that remark. One has to wonder about the economic effect of the Helena area casinos during that 6 month ban. I have a copy of this study originally posted and quickly removed from the tobaccofreekids.org site and know for a fact the "researchers" did not account for any confounding of this type. Well, lo and behold, tonight, in a quick search, I found this:

http://www.casinoman.net/content/news/newstemplate.asp?artid=420

Helena gaming revenue drops in first quarter of smoking ban

quote/Quarterly gambling revenue collected within the Helena city limits dropped 10 percent compared with a year ago, even though gambling collections were up elsewhere in the county, new state revenue figures show.

But experts say it is too early to say whether Helena's ban on smoking in all public places, including bars and casinos, is responsible for the decline.

"This doesn't prove anything, but it's not inconsistent with people going outside of Helena and gambling," said Paul Polzin, director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana. "You'd have to wait until the next quarter to see if there's any trends here. Because with more information, you get more confidence."/quote

and this:

http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,562620,00.html

Mont. Bill Exempts Casinos from Local Smoking Bans

Sen. Joe Tropila (D-Great Falls) said that since Helena's smoking ban went into effect, businesses in the city have been losing money and jobs are being impacted.

"The people of Helena have every right to do what they want to with the health and welfare of their community, but they don't have the right to tell other people what their property rights are," said Sen. Tom Zook (R-Miles City)./quote

my comments: Estimated 10% reductions in revenues in 1st quarter under the ban? Not inconsistant with people going outside Helena and gambling? Probably less outsiders coming in to town, and more Helena residents heading outside city limits (and away from that specific hospital) to partake in fun and games. Who wudda thunk it?

[lockjaw02]

Philip Morris was the lead of the big five tobacco companies at the Master Settlement Agreement talks. They tried to save their (_|_) because they have the most liability and the most to lose. They'll say anything to get by.

The MSA is nothing more than a conspiracy for racketeering.

1) The attorneys general allowed the tobacco companies to pass ALL costs on to their customers.

2) Small tobacco companies which had absolutely no liability whatsoever and weren't even at the table were penalized by an escrow mandate which required them to keep their prices artificially high so they could maintain sufficient cash flows enabling them to stay solvent. The sole purpose of this provision was to inhibit the small companies from gaining market share against the big tobacco companies and further force smokers to pay the high costs the tobacco companies were supposedly "penalized". Al Capone would have been proud to concoct such a scheme. And anti-smokers hailed it as a great blow to big tobacco, while in reality, they frothed at the mouth for they knew they were getting a piece of the pie.

How would you like to have you included and have to abide by a settlement in a lawsuit against your competitor? I thought so.

[Max McGarrity]

Damn, Lock, you're good.

[CSM]

Great info. I especially like the: "It doesn't prove anything" and the "Its to early to tell" statements. However, it sure wasn't to early to call it a success for reducing heart disease and it proved smoking bans caused that reduction.

Talking out of both sides of the mouth is a talent I have to learn!

[qam1]

ummmm NO Two versions of that story found (on Antismoking Websites) at

http://www.nietrokers.nl/e/n05090.html

http://www.tobacco.org/news/99506.html

1) No autopsy was performed so who knows exactly what this guy died of

2) He was away from the smoking section when he had his respiratory attack

3) He didn't die on the outbound trip

4) Quote "Hanson knew his medical history, was aware of a near-fatal attack in Las Vegas and breathing trouble in Alameda". So the guy was already was suffering servere symptoms from his health problems and knocking on death's door and probably would have suffered an attack and die anyhow even if the plane was smoke free.

5) How come people weren't dropping dead on planes all the time when they allowed smoking?

[Protagoras]

Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects,

No he isn't. Nor anything like it. But nice try.

Strawman

[r9etb]

It was my interpretation of his comments.

[Protagoras]

It was my interpretation of his comments.

And it was typically way off base. Not to mention misleading at best.